Time magazine recently had a cover story that was one of the sorriest pieces of "reporting" that I have ever read, and I have read some bad stuff in my life. It was written just like the wonky left on this site claims Fox reports news, only from the other side.

It started off innocently enough, but by the end of the second paragraph it was ready to toss the Constitution out as outmoded and irrelevant. The managing editor, Richard Stengle, clearly has an agenda

Here are a few things the framers did not know about: World War II. DNA. Sexting. Airplanes. The atom. Television. Medicare. Collateralized debt obligations. The germ theory of disease. Miniskirts. The internal combustion engine. Computers. Antibiotics. Lady Gaga.
People on the right and left constantly ask what the framers would say about some event that is happening today. What would the framers say about whether the drones over Libya constitute a violation of Article I, Section 8, which gives Congress the power to declare war? Well, since George Washington didn't even dream that man could fly, much less use a global-positioning satellite to aim a missile, it's hard to say what he would think. What would the framers say about whether a tax on people who did not buy health insurance is an abuse of Congress's authority under the commerce clause? Well, since James Madison did not know what health insurance was and doctors back then still used leeches, it's difficult to know what he would say. And what would Thomas Jefferson, a man who owned slaves and is believed to have fathered children with at least one of them, think about a half-white, half-black American President born in Hawaii (a state that did not exist)? Again, hard to say.

The man has an obvious agenda, and ignores everything that doesn't fit into it.

For one thing, he ignores that the Federalist papers were written to sell the Constitution to an unwary public that was still dealing with the aftermath of revolution, and saw no real need to change the government they had, even if it was obvious that the Articles of Confederation were not working. Everyone was willing to admit that we needed a strong national government, but no one wanted to see it grow too strong.

STENGEL: "What would the framers say about whether a tax on people who did not buy health insurance is an abuse of Congress's authority under the commerce clause?"MADISON: "The [federal governments] jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only [see list of 17 powers in Article I, Section 8], and leaves to the several states, a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects. (Federalist No. 39)STENGEL: "If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn't say so. Article I, Section 8, the longest section of the longest article of the Constitution, is a drumroll of congressional power. And it ends with the 'necessary and proper' clause, which delegates to Congress the power 'to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.' Limited government indeed.MADISON: "It has been urged and echoed that Congresss power 'to lay and collect taxes and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. ... For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?" (Federalist No. 41)STENGEL: "[W]e shouldn't be so delicate about changing the Constitution or reinterpreting it. It was written in a spirit of change and revolution and turbulence. It was not written in stone."MADISON: ''That useful alterations [Amendments] will be suggested by experience, could not but be foreseen. It was requisite, therefore, that a mode for introducing them should be provided. The mode [the Amendment process requiring consent of two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the States] preferred by the convention ... guards equally against that extreme facility, which would render the Constitution too mutable [changeable]; and that extreme difficulty, which might perpetuate its discovered faults."

You would think that the managing editor of a national news magazine would at least have heard of the Federalist Papers, even if he had never bothered to read them himself. Apparently he was to busy to even assign someone to fact check his story before he inflicted his subscribers to the trash he thinks passes as news.

You would think that the managing editor of a national news magazine would at least have heard of the Federalist Papers, even if he had never bothered to read them himself. Apparently he was to busy to even assign someone to fact check his story before he inflicted his subscribers to the trash he thinks passes as news.

Click to expand...

His error was more not citing Constitutional case law in support of his general premise, which is correct and precedents abundant, starting with Marbury and McCulloch. He also made an error with regard to:

 but it's unclear what the rights of illegal immigrants are as opposed to those of citizens.

No, in Plyler v Doe (1982) the Court ruled that undocumented aliens were entitled to habeas and other due process rights per the 14th Amendment. He could have indeed used someone dong a little legal research.

Otherwise there is no agenda, he accurately outlines the settled law of Federal supremacy. As the Court noted in Helvering v. Davis (1937), upholding the constitutionality of the Social Security Act:

The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison 

Whether the author has ever read the Federalist Papers is not germane, although a comprehensive understanding of the issues is always desirable. So too have judges and justices been aware of the Federalist Papers and other primary documents from the Foundation Era, and over the last seven decades the majority have elected to rule in favor of the Hamiltonian paradigm.

You would think that the managing editor of a national news magazine would at least have heard of the Federalist Papers, even if he had never bothered to read them himself. Apparently he was to busy to even assign someone to fact check his story before he inflicted his subscribers to the trash he thinks passes as news.

Click to expand...

His error was more not citing Constitutional case law in support of his general premise, which is correct and precedents abundant, starting with Marbury and McCulloch. He also made an error with regard to:

 but it's unclear what the rights of illegal immigrants are as opposed to those of citizens.

No, in Plyler v Doe (1982) the Court ruled that undocumented aliens were entitled to habeas and other due process rights per the 14th Amendment. He could have indeed used someone dong a little legal research.

Otherwise there is no agenda, he accurately outlines the settled law of Federal supremacy. As the Court noted in Helvering v. Davis (1937), upholding the constitutionality of the Social Security Act:

The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison 

Whether the author has ever read the Federalist Papers is not germane, although a comprehensive understanding of the issues is always desirable. So too have judges and justices been aware of the Federalist Papers and other primary documents from the Foundation Era, and over the last seven decades the majority have elected to rule in favor of the Hamiltonian paradigm.

Click to expand...

WTF? How is that his error? He argued that the founders were ignorant, and that we should ignore the Constitution because we are smarter. The funny thing is that the Federalist Papers actually dealt with the exact specifics he raised.

Your error is still that you refuse to admit that SCOTUS is not the final say on the Constitution, they are only the final say on the law.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!